The fundamental misunderstanding people have is that the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. That's why it's called a "copyleft" and not an "end user freedom agreement." The GPL is exactly not an end user license agreement. There are no terms of use for GPL software, and the OSI's definition of Open Source explicitly prohibits that.

Technically, all those GPL Windows programs that make you click "I agree with these terms" during install for the GPL are wrong to do so. The GPL requires that the user be notified of his or her rights and obligations with the GPL, but users are not required to accept the terms of the GPL because the GPL only applies to persons distributing the software. The installers should require no agreement checkbox, and the button should say "Next" and never "I Agree".

You can do whatever the hell you want with GPL software -- or, indeed, any OSI approved license, AFAIK -- and if you don't try to give it to a third party you don't have to publish squat. It's perfectly legal to have proprietary modifications to GPL code. You just can't distribute that software to anybody else without giving them the ability to get your code modifications.

This is how Google is able to run a custom version of MySQL for their search engine and they don't have to show the code to anybody. They don't have to do that because they're not distributing Google Custom MySQL to anybody in any form.

Cygwin is the worst answer to pretty much any issue on Windows ever. Forcing a POSIX environment onto the Windows environment to do basic tasks is why Linux admins are so shit at administering Windows. Just learn the damn system you're using.

Like TFA says, you need to look at it like a research OS. One that has critical flaws that are designed in, but that design has a purpose: to function in a different way. Doing so can expose new lines of thinking and novel approaches to "solved" problems. No, it won't function in a real world of networked computing, but it's not supposed to fit into that idiom. It still has some very interesting ideas. Spending time solving every problem again isn't the goal. There was a time when virtual memory didn't exist, for example, and computing still worked well enough to run businesses, banks, telephone networks, and governments. We don't need a research OS to show us that virtual address spaces are useful. We know that already. So, ignore it as not relevant, and do something that is a novel approach.

Looking at the ideas in TempleOS like they will replace Linux or Windows is silly, but they might give us ideas for new types of computing. The idea that everything would be better as a Linux device is, quite honestly, poisonous to the development real progress in the field of computing as a whole.

Maybe TempleOS is like non-Euclidean geometry. Sometimes need drives the development of new math -- Newton's development of Calculus -- and sometimes the math is developed and sits idle, doing nothing for nearly a hundred years before changing the world -- like Boolean algebra. A computer system is just a very complicated set of mathematical rules. Changing the rules of math and seeing what happens has been one of the major forces of change, as different systems are often best expressed in different forms of mathematics.

Does TempleOS make it easier to understand how computers operate? Does it make it easier to learn what a program actually is? Is it just an example of being closer to the bare metal, like you were flipping bit switches on an old Altair 8800? What if, for example, a system like this makes it very easy to model artificial intelligence? It can basically reprogram itself, after all, as everything is JIT and source code is readily available for literally everything at all times. That seems incredibly powerful. Is it possible to write a self-refining program in HolyC?

Just because I don't understand what something could be used to do doesn't mean it's useless. It might just mean I don't have a very good understanding yet. The questions to ask are, "What kind of system benefits from the design of TempleOS? What kind of system benefits from raw, unimpeded access from the user or input to the hardware?"

the vendor merely has to certify that they tested the update for any effect on clinical function.

So, it's exactly like he said and no updates are allowed to be installed.

ISVs are shit at security because nothing about security is their problem. Being in healthcare doesn't change that; if anything, it makes it worse. I would expect a vendor to spend exactly zero effort on verifying security updates, and less than that on notifying customers. If it ain't a new sale, they ain't interested.

Honestly, I hope some hospital gets the balls to sue an ISV for failing to act in a timely manner for perpetually ignoring security like we all know they do. It's not going to change until someone holds them accountable. They'll just hide behind their EULAs until then, and hospitals will get the bill for letting people die because of security holes.

Wow, so if I decide to stop using your payment service or even decide to cancel a third party service which happens to use your service for payments, I only have to change my bank account to get you to stop charging me.

It doesn't have to be difficult in order to make it completely ridiculous.

People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.

Well, it's good to know that just because you're atheist you don't think any different than the religious folks you despise so much. Idiots with opinions like, "people who disagree with me should be treated like second class citizens," was the entire purpose behind the First Amendment. I'm reassured it won't stop being relevant as the current population ages.

IMO, never read an article about a SCOTUS opinion. Always read the opinion itself. They are not difficult to find and not difficult to read.

It doesn't look like he was under the influence at the time, but the term "driving out of his lane" does kind of give reasonable cause for drug use, but maybe thats profiling.

No, it really doesn't.

Maybe the driver was futzing with their cell phone. Maybe their eyesight has degraded but they still have a license. Maybe there was something in the road that the officer didn't see. Maybe there was a bee in the car. Maybe the passenger grabbed the wheel. Maybe the vehicle is malfunctioning (say, headlights are out). Maybe the driver hit a pothole. Maybe the lines were unclear, having been repainted. Maybe the driver was falling asleep.

The core issue here was that the police officer was finished with the traffic stop. Then he asked to do a search, and the driver refused, and then he detained the driver.

Searches are legal, but waiting for backup to conduct a search isn't?

You can't detain someone longer than is reasonable (4th Amendment), and the decision says it's only reasonable to detain someone as long as it takes to complete the traffic stop (a definition established in Illinois v. Caballes in 2005). So case law says that the 4th Amendment's "reasonable" means "as long as it takes to finish the traffic stop." By the officer's own admission, the traffic stop was complete. Since nothing incriminating had been discovered by that point, that makes further detention or search unreasonable, and that makes the it all unconstitutional.

Pfft. Then you just add another layer of NAT! You can make 4 million two host networks with 10,0.0.0/24. Then you can put 4 million two host networks on each of those networks, too. Now you've got support for 17 trillion end user devices!

Much like turtles, the Internet could be IPv4 NAT all the way down....

Honestly, without regulation or legislation, I suspect that's how we'll end up.